Mangrove blue carbon in arid environments: soil carbon variability and predictive modelling


Abstract

The study explores spatial and depth-dependent variations in soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil physical properties in the hyper-arid mangrove ecosystem along the north-eastern United Arab Emirates (UAE) coastline. Results indicate that SOC was highest in inner plots, following the pattern Inner > Water > Land, with greater SOC in the 0–20 cm (topsoil layers) compared to 20–40 cm (bottom layer). The research also investigated the relationship between SOC and remotely sensed indices using Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 imagery. Among the tested indices, the Green Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (GNDVI, ρ = 0.65) and Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI, ρ = -0.65) exhibited the strongest correlations with SOC. To model SOC variability, three advanced machine learning algorithms, XGBoost, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting, were applied. XGBoost achieved the highest predictive performance (R² = 0.711), outperforming Random Forest (R² = 0.684) and Gradient Boosting (R² = 0.680). These results demonstrate the potential of integrating remote sensing and machine learning for accurate SOC estimation in hyper-arid mangrove ecosystems. The findings underscore the critical role of mangroves in blue carbon storage and highlight the utility of remote sensing technologies for long-term SOC monitoring, conservation planning, and climate change mitigation.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].